Eye rolls, sighs, outraged anger, and accusations of blasphemy are common reactions to the refrain “the Bible is Literature”. Such responses are based on a heady combination of perceptions of the Bible as a sacred text and literature as an art form. It does seems a little churlish though, to claim the Bible is not literature, assuming one accepts the premise that literature tells a good story, has beautiful phrasing of language, depth of meaning, invokes an emotional response, and offers insight into the human condition. Take the following as examples …

Absolutely, The Bible is beautiful literature, art. It is also science at the same time. Art and science together are probably the recipe for perfection. Unfortunately, I don't have 10 reasons why it is good science, but I have 1 reason in an article on my blog:

Science has come a long way since Antiquity. Many use the term indiscriminately to refer to humanities (Geisteswissenschaften), the "liberal arts" and what Germans call Naturwissenschaften (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) or mathematics. Philosophy, for instance, is not science.

Does religion use the experimental method to verify its claims? Is it restricted to the empirical sphere? Are the theories it operates with falsifiable and periodically replaced by new ones? If you call it a science, how come tradition, beliefs and dogmas play such a significant role?

IMO the worst thing that could happen to a religion is for it to be turned into pseudo-science. See scholasticism or scientology...

Science has come a long way since Antiquity. Nowadays, you can't use the term indiscriminately to refer to humanities (Geisteswissenschaften), the "liberal arts" and what Germans call Naturwissenschaften (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) or mathematics. Philosophy, for instance, is not science.

Does "religion" use the experimental method to verify its claims? Is it restricted to the empirical sphere? Are the theories it operates with falsifiable and periodically replaced by new ones? If you call it a science, how come tradition, beliefs and dogmas play such a significant role?

IMO the worst thing that could happen to a religion is for it to be turned into pseudo-science. See scholasticism or scientology...

Well, I prefer not to mix religion with spirituality, even though the two are absolutely related. Spirituality has to do with feelings, love, which indeed is of a transcendent nature and it simply is what it is, or it simply is or isn't. Religion has to do with giving spirituality a shape, a beauty (art) and logic (science). Spirituality has to do with raw feelings, while religion with perfection. Religion must be beautiful and scientifically verifiable as everything that God does and makes up life. I mean we look at creation and we see God's perfect art and science. And, so it should be with inner, spiritual life -- it must have a transcendent beauty and a logic.

Well, I prefer not to mix religion with spirituality, even though the two are absolutely related. Spirituality has to do with feelings, love, which indeed is of a transcendent nature and it simply is what it is, or it simply is or isn't. Religion has to do with giving spirituality a shape, a beauty (art) and logic (science). Spirituality has to do with raw feelings, while religion with perfection.

Spirituality (pneumatikoteta/duhovnicie), in the Orthodox understanding, is the art of spiritual fatherhood and discipleship - (re)forming man in the image of God and healing his passions. All the mystical syncretistic crap that moderns usually understand by that term is alien to Orthodoxy.

Religion must be beautiful and scientifically verifiable as everything that God does and makes up life.

I don't see that necessity. Religion can and does have many ugly aspects, reflecting the sinfulness and fallen character of those who practice it. As for "scientifically verifiable", that would mean that science is superior and must censure it. Science does have its inherent limits.

Fatherhood/discipleship has to do with what spirituality may imply. But there is also Pnevmatology which has to do with The Holy Spirit directly working upon man, His Grace, the union with him through love (theosis).

God is love; no crap, but the defining aspect of Him. That's spirituality. Also, think of the love/eros between the husband and the wife, The Songs of Songs, and The Bridegroom and The Bride theme in the Bible.

In the other part, it seems that you still assume that science means human technology and ideology, instead of reason, rationality, order, etc.

Well, I prefer not to mix religion with spirituality, even though the two are absolutely related. Spirituality has to do with feelings, love, which indeed is of a transcendent nature and it simply is what it is, or it simply is or isn't. Religion has to do with giving spirituality a shape, a beauty (art) and logic (science). Spirituality has to do with raw feelings, while religion with perfection.

Spirituality (pneumatikoteta/duhovnicie), in the Orthodox understanding, is the art of spiritual fatherhood and discipleship - regenerating man in the image of God and healing his passions. All the mystical syncretistic crap that moderns usually understand by that term is alien to Orthodoxy.

Religion must be beautiful and scientifically verifiable as everything that God does and makes up life.

I don't see that necessity. Religion can and does have many ugly aspects, reflecting the sinfulness and fallen character of those who practice it. As for "scientifically verifiable", that would mean that science is superior and must censure it. Science does have its limits.

Eye rolls, sighs, outraged anger, and accusations of blasphemy are common reactions to the refrain “the Bible is Literature”. Such responses are based on a heady combination of perceptions of the Bible as a sacred text and literature as an art form. It does seems a little churlish though, to claim the Bible is not literature, assuming one accepts the premise that literature tells a good story, has beautiful phrasing of language, depth of meaning, invokes an emotional response, and offers insight into the human condition. Take the following as examples …

Fatherhood/discipleship has to do with what spirituality may imply. But there is also Pnevmatology which has to do with The Holy Spirit directly working upon man, His Grace, the union with him through love (theosis).

Pneumatology as a subdivision of systematic theology is a late (Western) invention. I'm not contesting it, but in the Christian East pneumatikos is the spiritual father and pneumatikoteta - his very concrete craft.

God is love; no crap, but the defining aspect of Him. That's spirituality. Also, think of the love/eros between the husband and the wife, The Songs of Songs, and The Bridegroom and The Bride theme in the Bible.

Emotional spirituality is a bit of an oxymoron from the Orthodox p.o.v. Surely, the craft of the spiritual father should be holistic and deal with all the aspects of human life. But the Kama sutra would not be Orthodox spirituality.

In the other part, it seems that you still assume that science means human technology and ideology, instead of reason, rationality, order, etc.

I assure you I don't. Ideology would not be scientific - religious or political, more likely. Scientific theories fail if they become doctrines or dogmas. Technology is applied science. Let's not lump things together - it's neither rational nor reasonable to do so.

Eye rolls, sighs, outraged anger, and accusations of blasphemy are common reactions to the refrain “the Bible is Literature”. Such responses are based on a heady combination of perceptions of the Bible as a sacred text and literature as an art form. It does seems a little churlish though, to claim the Bible is not literature, assuming one accepts the premise that literature tells a good story, has beautiful phrasing of language, depth of meaning, invokes an emotional response, and offers insight into the human condition. Take the following as examples …

We disagree a lot. God is immaterial spirit who is Love which implies a divine eros between "Him" and man. I used quotations because God is not actually a He, but a spirit, a power who has the role of a father. We should put aside earthly conceptions of Him and/or limit Him to an insipid morality, as Fr. Raphael Noica would put it. But, this is a theological problem. I can't convince you of it; nobody can, except yourself. Otherwise, we will keep saying that theology is not important back and forth forever. Fr. Dumitru Staniloae should be a good reference for the theology that I've been mentioning. If he is not good enough, then again, we can pick and choose what we like forever. Yes, this is a matter of what we like, what we choose. We are all subjective and free. It is pointless to keep saying that "this is Orthodoxy, not that" when in fact we only know a little bit of it and it's the one bit that we prefer and/or know to seek. I would let God leads us to His truth and stop trying to force the infinite into a little right&wrong world-view.

P.S. I never said that God practices Kama Sutra on people and that He is immoral.

Fatherhood/discipleship has to do with what spirituality may imply. But there is also Pnevmatology which has to do with The Holy Spirit directly working upon man, His Grace, the union with him through love (theosis).

Pneumatology as a subdivision of systematic theology is a late (Western) invention. I'm not contesting it, but in the Christian East pneumatikos is the spiritual father and pneumatikoteta - his very concrete craft.

God is love; no crap, but the defining aspect of Him. That's spirituality. Also, think of the love/eros between the husband and the wife, The Songs of Songs, and The Bridegroom and The Bride theme in the Bible.

Emotional spirituality is a bit of an oxymoron from the Orthodox p.o.v. Surely, the craft of the spiritual father should be holistic and deal with all the aspects of human life. But the Kama sutra would not be Orthodox spirituality.

In the other part, it seems that you still assume that science means human technology and ideology, instead of reason, rationality, order, etc.

I assure you I don't. Ideology would not be scientific - religious or political, more likely. Scientific theories fail if they become doctrines or dogmas. Technology is applied science. Let's not lump things together - it's neither rational nor reasonable to do so.

Eye rolls, sighs, outraged anger, and accusations of blasphemy are common reactions to the refrain “the Bible is Literature”. Such responses are based on a heady combination of perceptions of the Bible as a sacred text and literature as an art form. It does seems a little churlish though, to claim the Bible is not literature, assuming one accepts the premise that literature tells a good story, has beautiful phrasing of language, depth of meaning, invokes an emotional response, and offers insight into the human condition. Take the following as examples …

The Bible is obviously literature. Some of the oldest we have. That doesn't mean it's not God-breathed. In the same manner Christ is God and man. The Bible is a product of the mind of God and the mind of man.

Quote from: Proverbs 3:14-19

13 Blessed are those who find wisdom, those who gain understanding,14 for she is more profitable than silver and yields better returns than gold.15 She is more precious than rubies; nothing you desire can compare with her.16 Long life is in her right hand; in her left hand are riches and honor.17 Her ways are pleasant ways, and all her paths are peace.18 She is a tree of life to those who take hold of her; those who hold her fast will be blessed.19 By wisdom the Lord laid the earth’s foundations, by understanding he set the heavens in place;

« Last Edit: November 13, 2013, 10:48:36 AM by xOrthodox4Christx »

Logged

"Your children shall become the head, but you... will become the tail of the Church; therefore your judges will be those who have always preserved the Catholic Faith... they will be the Orthodox and true Catholics since they have never accepted heretics... but have remained zealous for the True Faith." (Western Bishops' Response to Pope Vigilius)

The Greek of the New Testament is far from impressive. I don't think that contemporaries would have been very impressed by its literary quality, but they were impressed by its message.

Logged

"Who wants to be consistent? The dullard and the doctrinaire, the tedious people who carry out their principles to the bitter end of action, to the reductio ad absurdum of practice. Not I."-Oscar Wilde, The Decay of Lying

It is pointless to keep saying that "this is Orthodoxy, not that" when in fact we only know a little bit of it and it's the one bit that we prefer and/or know to seek. I would let God leads us to His truth and stop trying to force the infinite into a little right&wrong world-view.

I'm sorry, but you keep on muddling things. You seem to want to turn this into an apophatic discussion about metaphysics.

God has nothing against keeping this world-view of ours clear and grasping as much of His creation as possible. That's what science is for. Spiritual contemplation of God and the unseen world is a different matter. They aren't mutually exclusive, but should be well distinguished.

It is pointless to keep saying that "this is Orthodoxy, not that" when in fact we only know a little bit of it and it's the one bit that we prefer and/or know to seek. I would let God leads us to His truth and stop trying to force the infinite into a little right&wrong world-view.

I'm sorry, but you keep on muddling things. You seem to want to turn this into an apophatic discussion about metaphysics.

God has nothing against keeping this world-view of ours clear and grasping as much of His creation as possible. That's what science is for. Spiritual contemplation of God and the unseen world is a different matter. They aren't mutually exclusive, but should be well distinguished.

I agree. But you can only keep it clear in as much as you are working with the right and complete knowledge. If you have wrong and incomplete knowledge, then your clarity will lead you in all sorts of false directions. Hence, knowledge and experience go hand in hand. It is at the point of knowledge that I find that our views start to diverge, but it's not a real separation, but a perceived one because in reality we are working with very different sets of information, yet appear to be drawing the same concrete conclusions.

It is pointless to keep saying that "this is Orthodoxy, not that" when in fact we only know a little bit of it and it's the one bit that we prefer and/or know to seek. I would let God leads us to His truth and stop trying to force the infinite into a little right&wrong world-view.

I'm sorry, but you keep on muddling things. You seem to want to turn this into an apophatic discussion about metaphysics.

God has nothing against keeping this world-view of ours clear and grasping as much of His creation as possible. That's what science is for. Spiritual contemplation of God and the unseen world is a different matter. They aren't mutually exclusive, but should be well distinguished.

I agree. But you can only keep it clear in as much as you are working with the right and complete knowledge. If you have wrong and incomplete knowledge, then your clarity will lead you in all sorts of false directions. Hence, knowledge and experience go hand in hand. It is at the point of knowledge that I find that our views start to diverge, but it's not a real separation, but a perceived one because in reality we are working with very different sets of information, yet appear to be drawing the same concrete conclusions.

Also, another thing is that only God can leads us to His divine knowledge. That's why none of us can be a full and definitive source of anything. At best, we can indicate good reference points and levels.

Science has come a long way since Antiquity. Many use the term indiscriminately to refer to humanities (Geisteswissenschaften), the "liberal arts" and what Germans call Naturwissenschaften (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) or mathematics. Philosophy, for instance, is not science.

Does religion use the experimental method to verify its claims? Is it restricted to the empirical sphere? Are the theories it operates with falsifiable and periodically replaced by new ones? If you call it a science, how come tradition, beliefs and dogmas play such a significant role?

IMO the worst thing that could happen to a religion is for it to be turned into pseudo-science. See scholasticism or scientology...

We can sink his claim in one blow by pointing out that religion is a heq of a lot older than science.